“Never say never”, as the saying goes. Transit riders in the Richmond District will be pleased to hear that BART is considering adding an extension down Geary Boulevard. The topic will be part of the agency’s upcoming study of a second Transbay rail crossing.
MUNI currently carries 114,000 people to and from downtown via Geary Boulevard every day. That’s already 25% of BART’s overall daily ridership, and 2x Caltrain’s daily riders. So suffice to say, there’s a lot of need for a quick mode of transit from the “outerlands” to downtown and back again.
Despite the need, it’s unlikely that the Geary extension would take priority over a second Transbay tube to increase ridership between San Francisco and the East Bay.
But the fact that BART is thinking about it is encouraging. San Francisco officials are in favor of it as well, including Supervisor Sandra Fewer who told ABC7News that the Richmond District “needs it very, very, badly.”
A BART extension would be underground, which is something city planners have not considered seriously in recent years.
In fact the most recent brainchild to ease our transportation woes is the above-ground, controversial Geary Bus Rapid Transit Project, which would rip up Geary for several years to construct a dedicated, center transit lane along the boulevard for MUNI. It’s a multi-million dollar project that only promises a reduction in travel time of 10 minutes per trip (Project website).
Fun fact: This isn’t the first time that a BART extension to the Richmond District has been considered. Back in 1967, when plans were in the works for an extensive underground subway that would connect the Richmond with the new BART system once it opened. The image below is a concept showing it running underneath Park Presidio Boulevard at Geary.
We shall see what happens… But never say never. 🙂
Sarah B.
God save us from a messed up Geary!
As a necessary complement to this article, here is a link to a recent SF Examiner article that provides a great overview of mass transit in the Richmond: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/bart-looking-west-toward-geary-boulevard-in-transbay-crossing-study/
For my part, I will continue to advocate for simply putting into service a greatly increased number of signal-optimized advanced electric buses running literally every couple of minutes in rush-hour bus-only lanes. This is a near-ideal solution that is immediate, vastly lower in cost, and does not require the decades of construction and disruption of tunnels. It also delivers passengers to street level, avoiding the time and difficulty of getting into and out of tunnels. (I have no idea how it is that the brilliant minds working decades on this subject have not hit upon this obvious solution — oh wait, I do: their jobs depend upon massive planning and not on practical solutions.)
Per the project website you linked to in the article, “The estimated cost of the project is $300 million. That figure includes both the proposed transit improvements, utility upgrades, and additional streetscape elements.” Of that $300 million estimated cost, the federal government is providing $100 million of the funding as a grant.
What is your source for the “multi-billion dollar” cost claim in the article?
@Chris B – Good catch, typo on my part. Meant to say multi-millions. Ironically the BART extension would likely be multi-billion 😉
Jason J.is spot on. Period. But knowing how SFMTA operates they’ll spend endless bucks on something that will ripped out when BART decides build. Think Van Mess Avenue.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO……
BART Crime up 115% over 4-Years, Fare Evasion at 15% of Ridership
Jun 25, 2019
Less people are riding BART and safety, cleanliness are to blame, survey says by: Dan Kerman Posted: May 11, 2019
Don’t hold your breath. I’m in the design and construction industry. With the requirements for environmental impact reports, SF’s and regional (BART) approval processes, procurement/contracting, right-of-ways/legal agreements, and construction, the earliest this could be built is 7 years. I’m not joking. With typical delays in the government and construction, 10-12 years. But I would not be surprised if 20 years if not longer or ever. There are no “fast track’ projects when it comes to the public sector.
Truthfully, if we can get pedestrians to be cognizant of cars and other pedestrians in a cross walk and not look at their cell phones and avoid “Abbey Road” pedestrian staggering, I bet we could squeeze another 5 min out of the 38 Geary transit times as well as INCREASE safety with the minimal cost of a public safety announcement program and have that implemented in a few months time…. Sure pedestrians have the right of way, but sometimes, can they wait literally 2 seconds for a car to make a right turn BEFORE they step off the curb into a cross walk, instead of just charging out into them without any regard for a car?
It’s disappointing the editor is a cheerleader for BART.
Decades ago Geary Blvd. had a trolley/street car which was ripped out for buses. Streetcars running down the center lanes of Geary Blvd. seems the most sensible for the forseeable future. BART will be a 30 year project that will bring higher density and crime (the two are related) to the Richmond , so be careful what you wish for.